Re-Signing Rules

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

Hey guys. Since no one has yet stepped up to take over as the commissioner, I will continue to do some of the duties necessary for the league as I am able. Therefore, we're going to go ahead and open up the Re-Signing period. Here are the current re-signing rules:

Every team is awarded 5 total years to be used for extensions every off-season. They can be used however a GM chooses, but no player's contract can exceed the league-maximum of 5 years. Players cannot be re-signed if the GM does not have roster room, salary cap space or the necessary number of years to sign a given player. Additionally, no one player can be re-signed for more than 3 years in any off-season.

The price of extending a player a year is $1.5. However, as of two years ago, the yearly cost is $1.5 for the first year to $1 and $0.5 in the second and third years respectively. Also, many of these players have reached such high salaries recently that they have crippled their GM's ability to sign other talent in FA/fill out a full roster, as well as several others playing so poorly or retiring early with multiple years left on their contract that GMs have been stuck with them or had to eat the remainder of the contract. So choose wisely/carefully.

Keep in mind, you are not compelled to re-sign anyone now. We will announce a deadline soon, but it will likely be in the middle of March, which will be after the NFL's Free Agency period has opened and been underway for at least a week, so it may make sense and wait to see where some of these guys end up before committing to re-sign them.

Also, for the umpteenth time, PLEASE post in the correct format, which is as follows:

Player Name (TEAM-POSITION) $amount/number of years+y (also make sure and do the math and the number of years/$ that you intend to add to a player's contract or else it won't be honored)

EX: Colin Kaepernick (SF-QB) $6/2y > $7.5/3y (Again, if you don't do the format correctly, your bid will not be honored. Also, you CANNOT go back and change/edit your post unless asked to do so in this thread by a LM, otherwise, you will be penalized).
EX: Trumaine Johnson (STL-DB) $2/0y > $4.5/2y (Since he is getting resigned for 2 years, the 1st year is $1.5 and the 2nd year is $1.0)

[Buffalo Bills (Salvatore)]

Chris i dont remember losing extension years being a part of the rule change nor the part about only being able to use the reduced cost on one player . Im fairly sure that was not the case. If my memory serves me right the only thing the rule change effected was the cost of subsequent years. So say I extend matt ryan 3 years the 1st year increases his contract by 1.5 the 2nd 1 and the 3rd 0.5. Now im dowm to 2 contract years and if i wanted I could still use this rule to save. Say i extend Charles with the final 2 years the cost would be 1.5 for the first and 1 for the 2nd year. Unless we voted to change this rule im fairly sure im correct as the person who originally proposed the change.

[Seattle Seahawks (Cecil)]

I agree with sal on both points.

[Philadelphia Eagles (Andrew)]

Sal is definitely right. I have Russell Wilson 3 years and have my other years to other players. I've never used less than 5 years.

[Minnesota Vikings (Matt)]

Don't remember the losing two years because of extending a player for three. If that was passed I think we need to revoke it because a team should not be punished for extending a guy 3 years.

[Deleted]

I have been talking to Chris all morning. He says he has proof of the rule that was decided on, in PMs. However, I have expressed to him the opposition that we have to this rule and we are ok with caping it off at 3 years for being the most you can extend a single player (i.e. not allowed to do one single player 4 or 5 years) but not losing the remaining 2 years.

Chris said that he will not be able to be on until later today, so he asked me to post.

[Carolina Panthers (Justin)]

If that's the rule, it was never communicated to the rest of the league. I don't recall this rule being put in place and this is the only league I'm in so I can't get my leagues mixed up. An owner should never have extensions taken away. Let's hope for a resolution soon as this changes the way I use my extensions.

[Baltimore Ravens (Goose)]

I am also in agreement with everyone else Chris.  That was never the intent of the rule to reduce extension years just to reduce the burden on extending the player and not have the contract such a large amount.  PMs would not be proof that this was agreed to.

[Deleted]

The proof was just that it was talked about not that it was technically agreed on. Chris said that he would send the PMs later this afternoon. I honestly don't think its a big deal.

Moving forward we will keep it as everyone has suggested. No GM will lose years. Is everyone ok with the cap being 3 years for a single player?

[Baltimore Ravens (Goose)]

Feb 17, 2017 10:26:08 GMT -5 @mightymett2 said:

The proof was just that it was talked about not that it was technically agreed on. Chris said that he would send the PMs later this afternoon. I honestly don't think its a big deal.

Moving forward we will keep it as everyone has suggested. No GM will lose years. Is everyone ok with the cap being 3 years for a single player?

That was the case before so I do not see any reason of changing that.

[Deleted]

Then that is what we will go with.  I have edited the above post.  This should now reflect the resigning rules.

[Cincinnati Bengals (Chris)]

I have screenshots from the previous league that show that we did it that way for the previous two years that it has been in effect. That said, I've never been a fan of the rule because it inflates salaries (when the intent, I believe, is to make someone more affordable to lock up long-term), and it decreases the talent in the FA class. That said, I'm not in favor of the part of the rule that limits someone to 3 years if they do it that way. So I'm fine with changing it the way it's proposed in this thread for sure.

[Buffalo Bills (Salvatore)]

This is the first im hearing about the 3 year thing chris and as i am the one who proposed the rule im almost positive that is not the way it was stated when we voted nor have we done that in the last 2 seasons. I like the rule because imo it makes for a deeper fa pool because owners will be more likely to resign 1 or 2 players rather then  3-5  while saving teams money . The results are more top to mid end players hitting the market on a yearly basis which was my original argument when proposing the rule . I wouldnt have signed off with the 3 year thing as its entirely unfair imo.

[Washington Commanders (Dave)]

Quote me if i'm wrong but thought the rule was based on you can't extend someone more than 3 years one year and a single player more than 5 years total. This was to help FA pool at the time

[Deleted]

When's the deadline this year?